Garcia v. Ball, 108,817.

• Decision Date: 25 April 2014
• Docket Number: No. 108,817.,108,817.
• Parties: George Michael GARCIA, Appellant, v. Charles BALL, Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

50 Kan.App.2d 197

323 P.3d 872

George Michael GARCIA, Appellant,

v.Charles BALL, Appellee.

No. 108,817.

Court of Appeals of Kansas.

April 25, 2014.

Syllabus by the Court

Under K.S.A. 60–260(b)(1), the district court may grant relief from a final judgment on the basis of a defendant's excusable neglect. But the defendant must present some reason and some evidence in support of the excusable-neglect claim. Accordingly, a district court abuses its discretion by granting relief from a final judgment based on excusable neglect in the absence of an explanation of what constituted excusable neglect and some evidence to support that claim.

John A. Boyd, of Green, Finch & Covington, Chtd., of Ottawa, for appellant.

Bill L. Klapper, of Kansas City, for appellee.

Before BRUNS, P.J., PIERRON and LEBEN, JJ.

LEBEN, J.

George Garcia obtained a default judgment against his former attorney, Charles Ball, when Ball failed to file an answer to Garcia's lawsuit for more than 4 months. Ball then asked the district court to set aside the default judgment, claiming that his failure to answer the suit had been caused by excusable neglect. The district court granted that motion.

Garcia has appealed, contending that the district court abused its discretion because Ball didn't provide any factual basis to support his excusable-neglect claim. We agree that Ball failed to do so, and we conclude that a district court cannot grant relief from judgment based on excusable neglect when the party seeking relief has failed either to explain what facts constituted excusable neglect or to provide any evidence to support that claim. We therefore reverse the district court's judgment setting aside the default judgment previously entered against Ball.

Factual and Procedural Background

Ball represented Garcia in a criminal case in which Garcia was on probation. In a September 2008 hearing in that case, Garcia stipulated that he had violated his probation. The district court revoked his probation and ordered Garcia to serve his underlying prison sentence.

The district court then entered a written order—approved by Ball—that indicated that Garcia would be subject to postrelease supervision for 12 months after his release from prison. That appears to have been in error; Garcia shouldn't have been subject to postrelease supervision at all. See K.S.A. 22–3716(e). That's important because a person who is on postrelease supervision who commits a new felony goes back to prison for whatever remains of the postrelease-supervision period. See K.S.A. 75–5217(c).

Within 2 weeks of the probation-revocation hearing, the Kansas Department of Corrections sent a letter to the sentencing judge, with a copy to Ball, stating that it did not appear that a postrelease-supervision period should have been ordered. Nevertheless, the Department said that it would comply with the court's order.

After Garcia's release from prison—and during the postrelease-supervision period—he committed a burglary. Because Garcia committed the crime while on postrelease supervision, he was covered by a special sentencing rule that required that he serve the remaining portion of his postrelease-supervision term in prison. See K.A.R. 44–6–115c(c).

Garcia says that he contacted Ball, who agreed to have the error in the order requiring postrelease supervision corrected, but that Ball never took any action. Garcia filed a motion on his own in May 2010 seeking to correct the error. Several months later, in February 2011, the district court entered a corrected journal entry saying that Garcia shouldn't have been subject to postrelease supervision. According to Garcia, he was released from prison about a week after the court adopted its corrected order.

Garcia alleges that he spent more than 9 months in prison due to Ball's failure to get the order corrected. Based on that allegation, Garcia brought a legal-malpractice claim against Ball. Garcia filed his petition for damages on May 5, 2011. Docket entries in the district court's file show that the summons and petition were served on Ball on May 17, 2011. Under K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 60–212(a), Ball had to file an answer within 21 days, which would have been June 7, 2011. The district court's docket entries show that a clerk's extension of time was entered June 7, 2011 (clerks may grant a 14–day extension), and an additional order extending the answer date was apparently entered June 20, 2011. That document is not in the record on appeal, so we don't know what it said.

Garcia's attorney said he never received copies of any orders extending the time for Ball to answer, and Garcia filed a motion for default judgment on July 18, 2011. That motion noted that Ball had been served on May 17 and hadn't filed an answer. Garcia sought judgment for $522,400.

Garcia's May 2011 petition had sought damages “in excess of $75,000.” That's because Kansas law doesn't allow a petition to state a specific amount above $75,000. See K.S.A.2013 Supp. 60–208(a). In the event of a default, K.S.A.2013 Supp. 60–254(c) allows the plaintiff to send notice to the defendant of the amount sought by default judgment. On July 7, 2011, Garcia sent a notice to Ball that Garcia's “demand for judgment” would be for $522,400. On July 18, 2011, Garcia filed a motion for default judgment in that amount; Garcia's attorney mailed a copy of that motion to Ball.

On October 14, 2011, since Ball still had not filed an answer, the district court granted default judgment in Garcia's favor for $522,400. A month later, on November 14, 2011, Ball filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. Ball's motion sought relief under K.S.A. 60–260(b)(1) (“[m]istake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect”) and (b)(6) (“any other reason that justifies relief”).

The court held a hearing on that motion on November 14, 2012. Ball's attorney candidly conceded that Ball had “simply failed” to respond to the suit:

“If there is an excuse for him not filing an answer, Your Honor, he simply failed to, neglected to do so. And I know it's not a good excuse, but the truth of the matter. What happened, he should have taken care of it and should have got an answer on file. He did not do so.”

Ball did not attend the hearing. After Garcia's attorney argued that “[t]he statements of his counsel that he simply neglected to answer, I think failed to meet the burden of [showing] excusable neglect,” Ball's attorney offered a “guess” as to why Ball had failed to respond in a timely manner to the lawsuit:

“[M]y guess, Your Honor, as most attorneys do tell you, [is] that he was busy with his practice, and that he overlooked this particular matter. This despite the fact ... he should have taken care of things. I don't think there's any dispute about that.”

Garcia's attorney closed by arguing that since Ball had failed to provide any evidence supporting his claim of excusable neglect, his motion to set aside the default judgment should be denied:

“Apparently, he has not chosen to grace us with his presence to offer any evidence as to the nature of his neglect to respond to this lawsuit as the rules require, Judge. What they are asking you to do is to say that the rules don't apply to Mr. Ball, because he's an attorney who is busy and can't respond to the lawsuit. That can't be the rule, Judge. If anything, an attorney should have a higher burden to prove neglect, because they are an attorney, they practice law, and they are aware of deadlines. And there are severe consequences that can attach if deadlines are not met. So there's no evidence to substantiate their motion. We ask the Court to deny it.”

The district court then granted the motion to set aside the default. The court cited a general preference for avoiding default judgments as the primary basis for its ruling:

“Well, due to the extent that the law dislikes defaults, and because Mr. Ball has a [potentially] meritorious [defense], the fact that I personally don't like defaults, in matters of this nature, I'm going to grant the motion. Default judgment is set aside.”

Ball then filed an answer, and the lawsuit proceeded. The district court eventually dismissed it, concluding that Garcia couldn't sue his criminal-defense attorney unless Garcia first was exonerated for the underlying offense. See Canaan v. Bartee, 276 Kan. 116, Syl. ¶ 2, 72 P.3d 911 (2003).

Garcia has appealed to this court. He challenges both the district court's decision to set aside the default judgment and its later ruling that his suit was barred by the exoneration rule announced in Canaan. Because we have found the default-judgment issue determinative of the appeal, we do not address the applicability of the exoneration rule to this case.

Analysis

Courts and lawsuits are governed by rules, so we must start by identifying those applicable to our case. The primary rule at issue here is part of the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure, K.S.A. 60–260. Garcia had obtained judgment against Ball in October 2011. Ball's November 2011 motion to set aside the default relied upon two subsections of K.S.A. 60–260(b). Under those provisions, the court “may relieve a party ... from a final judgment” based on “[m]istake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect,” K.S.A. 60–260(b)(1), or based upon “any other reason justifying relief,” K.S.A. 60–260(b)(6).

Ball doesn't mention subsection (b)(6) on appeal, and his argument both here and in the district court was that his failure should be excused based on excusable neglect. In addition, when a party's claim for relief is covered by subsection (b)(1), the catch-all provision of subsection (b)(6) does not apply: It is available only for types of cases different from those specifically provided for. See In re Marriage of Leedy, 279 Kan. 311, Syl. ¶ 4, 109 P.3d 1130 (2005); Subway Restaurants, Inc. v. Kessler, 273 Kan. 969, 978, 46 P.3d 1113 (2002). So we will focus on whether Ball qualified for relief based on excusable neglect under K.S.A. 60–260(b)(1).

We...